If you insist Bergoglio’s a real pope, you’ve got to treat him like one!

I absolutely agree with this point from the Sedevacantists.  It's why R&R is completely untenable from any and all known Catholic ecclesiological principles.

Source

Sedevacantists are truly obsessed by the question of the papacy. One may well wonder if in many of them this is not due to some psychological trauma. Their understandable ancestral veneration for the pope seems to unleash a veritable panic at the idea of contrasting their cherished, idealized image of the papacy with such popes as Paul VI and John Paul II.

Sedevacantism appears to be more of a psychological than a theological problem. It would be both easy and cruel to evoke here some of the variations, as well as the successive divisions fostered by their numerous cliques and the astounding reversals and turnabouts coming from their inconsistent motives.

But why be so harsh with them? Are not those reproaches, which they make regarding the Pope's teaching, his pastoral approach, including some erroneous Vatican II teachings, indeed well founded? Admittedly, some indulgence could be shown for some theological error which, for the moment, has but little practical consequences, if we were not to note and observe the dire consequences brought upon the faithful. We now see only too well what effects those theological outpourings produce in passionate Catholics. They now have become their own pope. They judge their own priests. No longer do many of them have recourse to the sacrament of Confession. No longer do they hearken to the Church's infallible teachings. They generally bring moral ruin on their own families. [These are the self-titled and self-styled "home-aloners."- Ed.]

We used to know truly pious Catholics. After a few years we met them again only to find them marked by a psychological behavior found in types such as the Jehovah's Witnesses or in protestants in general: haughty, understanding everything, seeing everything through their jaundiced and obsessed eyes, unceasingly shaking their rattles of definitive, final, and unanswerable arguments which they do not understand themselves. Beware the time when they lose their God-given Faith and give up on everything.

How can one explain such a breakdown in the Christian spirit? We may well wonder if sedevacantism may not prove to be even more grave, more serious than it first seemed. Experience has proved that that which is understood by most of those Catholics won over to the sedevacantist camp turns out to be quite a simple idea: an unworthy pope is no longer pope. This strangely resembles the unhinged teachings of Wycliffe and of John Hus: A pope in the state of mortal sin is no longer pope, a bishop in the state of mortal sin is no longer bishop having authority in his own diocese, nor does a pastor in such a state have any authority over his parish. And the same for a king over his country, etc. We may think that John Hus was sincere in his errors. His death does not seem to be one of a formal heretic. But this fact changes nothing with regard to the eventual ugly consequences. The followers of Jan Hus later became bloodthirsty wolves feeding on their exploited fellow citizens as they hunted to death those bishops, pastors, kings and princes whom they thought were not worthy of life.

Rank speculation? A strange mixture of ideas? Do not be too sure. Let those who know of the appalling affair of the lnstitut Cardinal Pie think deeply about this: a half-crazed, self-appointed leader had applied the Cassissiacuм thesis to the French political system. He preached that those in power had no intention of working for the common well-being of their people, and therefore their power was only a sham, their places in government were vacant and required being taken over by right-thinking men. "I," said their leader, "know what is necessary for the welfare of France. This is my desire and intent and I therefore constitute the legitimate power of the country." And thus was founded a secret society levying taxes on its members, passing judgments by internal tribunals, and spying on its associates. Of course, such nonsense could not last and soon fell apart. But the sudden appearance and taking form of such a project and the seduction it was able to exert over intelligent men and women proves that the spirit of sedevacantism is indeed harmful to souls.

Well maybe after Lover of Spam as you call him starts another 50 threads all promoting sedevacantism as if it's a revealed truth, you will agree that some sedevacantists are truly obsessed by the question of the papacy. Maybe not, but maybe.

Oh come off it - that video is the stupidest sede video I can remember ever seeing.

If you think that it is accurate, then your "pope problem" is a bigger problem than I thought it was.

Quote from: Stubborn

Well maybe after Lover of Spam as you call him starts another 50 threads all promoting sedevacantism as if it's a revealed truth, you will agree that some sedevacantists are truly obsessed by the question of the papacy. Maybe not, but maybe.

Both SV and AntiSV seem to be obsessed by the matter.
The AntiSV apologetic material is probably as massive as the pro.

Possibly the only topic more divisive and monomania-inducing is the subject of EENS.

And yet the attention paid to these things is absolutely justified.  Everything about Traditional Catholicism, the justification for it, rests upon these two questions.  If you don't see this, then I can't help you.

And yet the attention paid to these things is absolutely justified.  Everything about Traditional Catholicism, the justification for it, rests upon these two questions.  If you don't see this, then I can't help you.

I agree that they are very grave matters, of enormous importance.
Unlike Stubborn, whom I entirely disagree with about the (non) necessity of a Pontiff (apart from nominal bureaucratic homages) in the matter of Salvation,government, guidance, doctrine and so on.

On the other hand, I can admit there's many borderline monomaniacal cases, ie people (even in high positions) who barely can avoid talking about the matter even in the context of unrelated arguments.

Maybe it's the internet contributing to giving out this impression, I don't know, as I have very little real life experience with Traditionalism&similar.

While that may be true, it has no bearing on the matter of the necessity, as an actual and present institution, of both a Church and a Pontiff.

Theoretically, you don't even need a Church also. Not even a "trad" priest. Only baptism from someone.
Then you could go among the Matutu (or whatever they are called) in the Amazon and live in peace.

Or, even more exceptionally, you could live alone on an asteroid (if it were possible) and an Angel could have baptised you and taught you the rudimentaries of Catholic faith.

That does not negate the absolute and imperative necessity of the Catholic Church and the Pontiff, as optimal and universal institutions.

Case in point: the very last 60 years.